User talk:Jeffq

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, and use headings for better formatting. You can do that automatically by simply pressing the plus sign (+) on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thank you!

JeffQ, it's wally!!! How the heck aren't you, brother, anyhow? look, ok, it's true: I was dead for awhile in federal prison for selling melted lollypops to Lucifer’s cousin but the way I saw it was just another dime... I wanted to drop by and send you a special hello and wish you the best for the previous year and lasting best wishes for the up-coming elections; may the best woman be laid by the second runner down. Anyway, look nothing personal Jeff, you know I do like you and all but get the hell out of this place before it eats your life up!! Look what happened to 0waldo, and personally speaking, I can attest to it all.... I posted the link to the youtube video clip - satisfy your rabid curiosity and watch it because it's just a total hoot! I've been doing some more artwork lately; mostly portraits and don't ask me why? Please go look and give me thumbs up or down as the case may be'nt!. OK, enough said and have a great week/month/year/decade/century, etc., and so on..... Wallace Munchovie, aka and all kinds of derivations thereto... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.214.64.9 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help close them on time, but I'm not sure how to do it. Obviously I can delete the original. But how do you put the discussion into the archives, and have the nice blue background copy of it in the VFD area for a few days? --Ubiquity 23:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to point you to the documentation for this process. But I notice that we don't seem to have updated Wikiquote:Deletion policy (which doubles as our "deletion process" page) to reflect the new VfD process. And that is because we haven't even officially ratified the new VfD system which is nearly a year old!

I blame myself for this. I've always tried to make sure our documentation reflects our practices, and I've been doing far too little of this lately. While I bump up the priority on dotting these i's and crossing these t's (the "word of the day" two days ago on Wiktionary, an interesting omen), here's the basic process:

Close the discussion by editing the whole page (not just the section). Add {{vt|RESULT}} ~ ~~~~ to the top and {{vb}} to the bottom. This turns the discussion blue. (If you forget the vb tag, like I sometimes do, it'll turn the entire remainder of the VfD page blue until it's fixed.)

Take the chosen action on the page.

For delete, don't forget to delete talk pages and remove references from articles where appropriate (e.g., remove an obvious unnotable from List of people by name, but you can leave truly famous people for future creation).

For keep or no-consensus, remove the VFD tag (which I frequently forget!) and add a {{vfd-kept-new|TITLE}} tag to the talk page (TITLE being the name of the discussion, usually but not always the same as the page). There's also a {{vfd-redirect-new|TITLE|REDIRECTED-TO}} template for redirects and merges without deletion.

There are other oddities, like "pending action", but don't worry about that. 99% are covered by the two usual classes of results, and someone else can jump in on anything weird.

Cut the discussion line from WQ:VFD and paste it into the month page, placing it in reverse chronological order by date of nomination (most recently nominated at the top). Copy over or add the HTML nomination-date comment if necessary to make it easier for folks to keep them in order.

Save the changes with an appropriate edit summary on both pages. (I like to include a list with each closed discussion title, to make it easier to find them in the WQ:VFD and log page histories, but most folks just say something like "archived 3 discussions".)

You don't need to archive the discussion immediately after closing. If there's been some interesting discussion or controversy, I like to leave the discussion in place on WQ:VFD for a day or two. But you can move it there right away also. I'm afraid, too, that some closers still feel uncomfortable about the archive process, which is actually much easier than it use to be. (Those docs really need to get updated!) The nice thing is that we no longer have to do both steps immediately.

Let me know if you have any questions or problems. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very clear. As long as you bring it up, most of our pages on deletion are out of date -- which is mainly why I bring so many things to VFD that get reactions like "should have been speedy" or "should have used prod". I think we need to revise the whole thing, and have a new chart that says when to speedy, when to prod, and when to VFD. I don't feel competent to do that myself, but I'll be glad to help. Let me know if you can use any. --Ubiquity 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What's your take on pages with a single phrase, obviously intended to be offensive, but which might be a quote from a person or group which might be notable? For instance, User:Ubiquity/Some Obscure Rapper. No intro, no sources, no indication that the text is a quotation. But assume I recognize or get ghits for "Some Obscure Rapper" — enough to convince me he might be notable. Does this qualify for SD/nonsense, SD/vandalism, SD/no quotes, or does it require prod or vfd? Or should I assume good faith and provide an intro and format the article properly? I suppose that if it were intended as vandalism, making it a proper article might take some of the fun out of it for the perpetrator. --Ubiquity 13:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, for musicians, if they have neither an All Music Guide nor a Wikipedia entry, I'm inclined to assume they're non-notable. With an unoriginal quote like in your example, even though it's something that a rapper might find lyrical, I think that combination would justify an SD/unremarkable subject. (It may be vandalism or a hoax, but SD/A4 puts the burden of proof in an appropriate place if someone wants to argue the point.) If they do have some arguable notoriety, and it seems like someone just pasted it in without any intention of building up a decent article, that's where I think {{prod}} is useful (i.e., careless, abandoned article). But if it seems like someone is planning to create an article about an arguably notable person with a bunch of inane "quotes", I tend to send them to WQ:VFD, as I do with wrestlers, obscure fictional characters, and other articles that collect lots of unpithy, unoriginal, and unsourced material, as they could conceivably be made useful (however unlikely). ~ Jeff Q(talk) 17:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'd like to personally apologize to a certain member of this project, and to express my gratitude for having invited me to the project. Where do I go about doing this, and in which protocol should I address such concerns? -B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X3773 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, in going beyond this, I also would like to address the concerns of all involved. The responsibility for bad-decisions was without a doubt mine, and the shame and disgust have stayed with me to this day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by X3773 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about, and your posting of these oddly vague statements into a 2-year-old topic started by an apparent troll only adds to the confusion. Would you care to explain what your specific situation and intentions are? Thank you. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 20:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is me, Zarbon, letting you know that I received your email confirmation and have responded to you through email and am responding here as well just to make sure you get this response and a complete confirmation tying my ip with my email. - 72.229.48.178 02:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jeffq for finally unblocking me. This is my first post under my user name in a long time and I wanted it to be a thanks. In some ways, I would also like for it to be an apology if I may have been annoying at all. You have been very patient. Thanks again. - Zarbon 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year! One of my New Year's resolutions is to finish Wikiquote:Bartlett's 1919 Index - but I can't do it alone. There are 234 red links for which articles need to be created, and 275 blue links for which articles need to be checked. Although I've been trying to get one done each day, lately I have not had time to do even that! Please consider making a commitment to help me keep my resolution by creating or checking one entry on this page per week. Help public domain quotes find their home in 2008! Cheers! BD2412T 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

After a spate of vandalism began with a few associated usernames, I have blocked Huard114, Huard115, and Huard116, and am prepared to block the very probably associated username User:Kalki Hunter if it is misused, but it might be good to run a check on the IPs of these accounts when you have the chance. Thanks. ~ Kalki 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've confirmed all of these (and Huard117) as sockpuppets, and blocked Kalki Hunter and their IP per my findings. Thanks for calling attention to this. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There was an apparent dispute which occurred earlier today between User:Johney and User:82.203.139.241; The IP has been used for previous linking to articles on the Finnish Wikiquote, so it's use by the Johney there might be genuine, but there has thus far been no confirmation of this on the Finnish user's talk page. The user "Johney" seems to have been engaged in nothing but disputing on the talk page of the IP and myself, and I blocked this username as a probable troll for 3 days after its request for a block on both itself and the IP. I afterwards deleted its user page which seems to have been created as an attack page by an impersonator. If you or Aphaia have time to check in on this any time soon it might be helpful. ~ Kalki 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd noticed that and have been doing a little research on the Finnish WP. These two seem to be having a disagreement there as well, although I can't quite decipher Finnish well enough to understand what it is. Finnish "Johney" seems to be a substantial and serious contributor there, so I'm reluctant to do a CU that might tell me his IP (possibly the same across projects) without more background. I've asked him to explain on his Finnish talk page, in English, what he thinks is going on. If I don't get a reply or the explanation doesn't tell us enough, I'll do the CU. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Johney from fi:WP has responded that the IP is his, but the existing "Johney" here is not him. The IP behind that user happens to be from a network operated by a hosting service with a history of compromised servers, so I've blocked the IP for a year as an open proxy/zombie. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 20:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, Cato. I wanted to review the state before replying, but I'm so preoccupied in meatspace right now that I'm unfairly holding things up by my attempt at preparation. If you feel the merge issues have been dealt with, by all means place it into the regular archive. If not, I'll try to look it over sometime soon (I hope) to see if I can do something about it. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit to Scott Adams that added a list of "quotes" apparently from restaurant menus at Stacey's At Waterford. This looks like a commercial advertisement, and I can't see what it has to do with Scott Adams. Can you explain why you felt this was an appropriate addition to this article? I'm quite puzzled. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Scott Adams is part owner (I think) of the restaurant and he wrote those things for the menu. They are both sourced and funny so I'll revert your blanking. // Liftarn

Thanks for responding on this matter. I re-removed these items because the cited webpage did not indicate that Adams wrote these jokes. Then I thought to dig a little and quickly found such a statement on the website's "About Us" page, so I restored them again. I took a little rejiggering, but I recast the first source to indicate both the quote and the attribution sources (usually not something we have to do separately). Technically this should be repeated for every single quote, but I thought we might get away with just including the sourced attribution for the first quote. Since the other quotes are clearly sourced to the restaurant's online menu, this should suffice. (There may be better ways to do this, but I'm in too much of a hurry right now to make a mini-project of this.)

This doesn't resolve the the question of whether it makes sense to include so many quips from a restaurant menu. They don't strike me as the "very best" of Scott Adams, which is what Wikiquote articles are intended to be. There's also a question of whether quoting nearly half the menu's jokes is a copyright violation. In any case, some of this should probably be trimmed. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In reference to your comment on my talk page: I would not normally edit an attribution on Wikiquote without a proper source. In fact, I wouldn't normally edit Wikiquote at all because I consider it a conflict of interest; I run the web's oldest and most popular quotation site and would rather focus my energies there. As for the quote in question, it was attributed to "Laura Moncur" and I know that to be incorrect because Laura is my wife and she complained to me about the attribution. Due to running a popular quotation site we are often mistakenly cited as the authors of quotes. User DJFLAVIN has repeatedly attributed this quote to Laura Moncur and I felt I should correct this. Thanks for adding more detail about the (dubious) sources of this quote. Mmoncur(talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and for your effort to correct DJFLAVIN's misapprehension. I imagine it was caused by Googling the quote to find [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38458.html Quotation #38458 from Laura Moncur's Motivational Quotations] as the most professionally presented citation with a name attached to it, and failing to notice that this was a collection of your wife's personal favorites, not an attempt to claim origin. Google Search is great, but folks tend to confuse popular with accurate, and read far more into the information they find than is meant by the publishers. My hasty research suggests that the quote predates all the sources I could easily find in Google Book Search, so I felt it necessary to cite what I had until another Wikiquotian could tackle this more thoroughly.

I've enjoyed reading quotes from [http://www.quotationspage.com/ The Quotations Page], and admire the work you and your wife have put into your immensely popular site. I always tell people that we can't consider such websites as reliable sources, given Wikimedia's needs and goals, but many (including yours) are nevertheless quite useful (and often more relevant for a surfer's inquiries, I must admit). I only wish we all had an easier job nailing down original sources. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the last quote on the Rush Limbaugh page. There is an edit war going on about this quote. Two camps, one insists on having it, one refuses to have it. Greyed (talk · contributions) (in the "remove" camp) asked in Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Protection of Rush Limbaugh that the page be protected. You can see my answer there; no other admin expressed interest. But the two camps are still having revert-wars over the quote. Got any advice? Is it possible (or desirable) to have a VFD on a single quote? Are there other decisive ways to determine something like this when both sides are implacable? --Ubiquity 01:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention on this. Now I know how to handle it next time. --Ubiquity 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for allowing me to edit here. I didn't arrange anything with Huard. He heard about me on Wikipedia and was just curious about me. He wanted to know what the situation was there, nothing more. I don't think he's a bad guy. I asked him to e-mail me because, as you wrote, our conversation looked bad. I am also trying to be on good terms with the community here. I tried to remain on good terms with people at Wikipedia, too, but someone from Wiktionary started complaining to them about me.

I plan to add more quotes to Wikiquote. I have a bunch of really good ones lying around. I hope you don't mind my user page, by the way. It has a sad tone, so if you like, I can blank it. I'm trying to leave Wikipedia behind me, anyway.

Thank you for your quick response. Huard was a proven serial sockpuppeteer who insisted on creating patently junk articles, then created a username clearly meant as an attack on the admin trying to stop his junk creation. Junk articles are forgiveable if a new editor chooses to learn Wikiquote goals; repeated creation of junk articles is considered vandalism; and serial sockpuppetry is a fast track for a permanent ban. The last username was gratuitous; it's hard to credit anyone with the wiki knowledge and energy to be persistently disruptive with good faith, and his post about teaming up with you clearly indicated that he not only wanted to appear to be a vandal, but knew enough about Wikimedia events to seek you out for collaboration. He may be a real nice guy in real life, but he's a proven disrupter here.

As long as you do not violate policies here and are not using Wikiquote resources to cause problems for other projects, I think your fellow Wikiquotians would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. Unless I'm told otherwise by the Foundation, or other events force a re-evaluation, I'll take no further action on this.

I don't want you to feel that I expect you to blank your anti-Wikipedia statement. I do recall some of my own writings that, while expressing heartfelt anger at difficult situations, in retrospect said more about me than it did about the situations (and not particularly flattering things, either). You seize on the idea of your opponents calling themselves "janitors", but don't seem to realize that this is intentional humility used as a means of respecting the custodial nature of doing necessary maintenance on a project that only works because the contributors vastly outnumber the admins. (Jimmy Wales & co. tried using only credentialled people (see Nupedia), but that proved unworkable. I think just about everyone has been surprised how useful Wikipedia has proven to be, despite its many and obvious flaws. In the end, it's the utility that matters, and we must learn how to work together knowing that not everyone has the same skill set.)

We don't require that people edit, although I certainly hope you will resume your contributions. I only ask that you be very careful about copyright issues. Copyvio is a far more serious problem here than at Wikipedia. Nearly all of our content is copyrighted, so we must work hard to avoid using any more than an insignificant portion of any creative work in each and every article (and in many cases, even in each and every section of an article). In case you weren't aware of this, French Wikiquote was shut down for nearly a year, and had to start completely from scratch because their copyvio problems became unacceptable to the government and infringed parties there. We ourselves continue to struggle with this problem. In fact, the most useful work anyone could do here is to weed out lesser quotes, as well as source the better ones, so that we are both compliant and accurate. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. My main concern with the name janitor is that it makes it look like administrators on Wikipedia do not take their jobs seriously. "Jimbo" encourages this type of thinking, both by his writing on the matter and by his example. Consequently, the bar is set too low for promotion, and many administrators act carelessly. Many think that it's not a big deal if they block someone or delete an entry. In my managerial studies, I learned that respect and reasoning are pivotal in getting people to do what you want of them. Administrators on Wikipedia seem to rely on blocking people because users don't respect them. Users should do what administrators ask simply because they like and admire them. Many of the users on Wikipedia are also computer people, so they tend to think of conflict as a problem requiring a technical solution. The statements on my user page about my qualifications and block are arguments against the validity of my ban and against certain negative statements made about me.

I agree that Wikipedia can be useful, although I only use it after I've consulted published sources. (I think that the Nature study overstated the reliability of the site.) I also use Wikipedia for its external links to reliable sources. My greatest concern about the site, though, is its hostile atmosphere. In addition to my concerns above, editors are not recognized for their contributions, and civility rules are not enforced. Other things, like bans, are over enforced. "Jimbo" should really visit his sites more often and give users a sense of direction.--Primetime 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have wondered whether imported pages with their edit history should be prefixed "Transwiki". Mike.lifeguard has said yes. I have not heard of other comments. How about you?--Jusjih 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of question I don't feel competent to consider until I've had a chance to study exactly what the results of an import look like, including every detail of the results. I haven't looked at any suggested examples recently because I know they'll generate questions, requiring more study, requiring more testing, etc., to satisfy me that I understand all the implications. This is what I've been hoping to do since December and have failed to accomplish.

That said, my basic feeling would be that if I were satisfied that the edit history of an imported page somehow gave credit to the original project's editors for each editor (e.g., had links akin to what I used at Talk:Big Brother (UK)#Transwiki merge), I would probably find direct importing to the resulting article title fine. Anything less and I'd be concerned about misleading edit histories. But I understand this may be highly impractical. I just don't know enough yet to give my own opinion on the trade-off between proper crediting and making material transfer easy enough to ensure it gets done. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 05:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you check my log here, you will see American history quotes, American history quotes New Deal, and American history quotes Roaring 20s. When I imported them with temporary undeletion on English Wikipedia, they ended up in article namespace without "Transwiki". As Mike.lifeguard is so far the only one for "transwiki" prefixing while no one else has said anything, I merged these three articles into their corresponding pages prefixed "Transwiki" for now. All edit history is preserved here even though deleted from English Wikipedia. If the majority of users here favor prefixing "Transwiki", I will follow it while I will know the better procedure than the above three pages, but our Village pump has not got better opinions.--Jusjih 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the info, and when I can finally get to it, I'm sure I'll find it useful in seeing how things have developed. But one of the most important things I've learned in Wikimedia is that many processes proceed and succeed as they do not because lots of people have contributed robust, comprehensive analyses of well-researched situations, but because individual, responsible, energetic editors like yourself are bold and simply get things done in the absence of broad community input.

I trust you to do good things. I may or may not agree with them eventually, but I also know that most good work goes on here and elsewhere without my input. (I mean that completely without hidden implications. It's just that I am so overcommitted that just about the only time I have anymore to contribute to Wikimedia is to do stuff related to checkusers, and explain to people why I am not participating in their areas of interest. I wish I could do more, but it's just not possible right now.) Please don't worry about explaining things to me now. Just do your good work for the project. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 03:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

hi therefriend! Why did you do that to my saikano artical(or did you)?--Lolicon 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's not your article, even if you created it. It's Wikiquote's article. None of us owns the articles we create. The article's edit history provides the legal list of contributors (which is much more detailed than required by law, as it's usually possible to see every single character added or deleted by each contributor), but the overall copyright for the composition belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, which releases the material under GFDL.

Second, if you're going to ask someone, especially an editor that works on thousands of pages, "why did you do that", it's a very good idea to be specific about what "that" is. The more work you make someone go through to figure out what you're talking about, the less likely they are to respond, or at least to respond favorably. Furthermore, this is essential when you are editing with one username ("Nijikon"), representing it as something else ("Lolicon"), and (inappropriately) claiming ownership under two others ("Saikano" and "Saikano II"). Two basic ways to be more specific would be:

Say "why did you delete most of Saikano 2 days ago and write an insulting edit summary?". You don't need to be this detailed, but just saying "my saikano artical" isn't as clear as you might think. For one thing, since you adopted the name "Saikano", the phrase "my saikano artical" could refer to anything you've worked on. You must learn to realize that other people, whose concerns and experiences are different from yours, may not understand the same points from your posts that you are trying to make. (It doesn't help that you don't seem to know the basic spelling of common words here like "article", and don't seem to know how to use capital letters or spaces properly. This kind of txtspk implies a general lack of interest in being literate, in a project that is devoted to a literary purpose. You could hardly do more harm to your cause than if you were to regularly "shout" at your fellow editors.)

Use links. Wikiquote has an easy way to point people to an edit:

Look at the edit history of the article. Each edit in the list has two round "buttons" to its left.

Select the left button of the version before an edit (or edits), and the right button of the edit (or the last edit, if there were several in a row).

Click on the "compare selected versions" button to see a page that displays the exact edit(s) listed.

Copy the URL (the web address in the "address" window of your browser).

In your posted comment, paste the URL you copied into something like the following:

Why did you do [http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Saikano&diff=671352&oldid=592208 this] to my article?</nowiki>

Now whoever reads this can click on the link to see what you mean by "this".

Finally, as the edit history shows, I did not do "that". An anonymous (and incredibly rude) one-time editor removed much of your boilerplate text, leaving only a single quote. Any editor could have reverted the edit on the basis that it was a mass removal without explanation (tossing out an insult is not an explanation for a content change). If no one did, it is perhaps because much of the material that was removed didn't follow Wikiquote style guidelines (like inserting pointless and inaccurate comments like "*UNDERCONSTRUCTION!!!", failing to identify episodes by number to make ordering easier) and/or were not very good examples of quotes memorable for their words instead of their visual or aural elements, which aren't usefully communicated in a text medium like Wikiquote. We must recognize that Wikiquote's purpose is not to be a collection place for all quotes of anything, and especially not a place for fans to post their favorite scenes or moments that must be seen to be appreciated. There are many fan websites that do this, and it's easy these days to create your own as well. Wikiquote's purpose is to collect a subset of the very best, most memorable words from different works.

All of this does not excuse the rudeness of the anon's edit. If I were more active right now, I might have posted a note to his/her talk page and restored some of the quotes and maybe even the headings. You are welcome to do so, but please consider what I've said above in making your future edits. (And please leave out the "*UNDERCONSTRUCTION!!!" comments!) Thank you. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, generally agreed with Jeff, but a major-minor-picking. I am totally happy to agree on that there is no article mine or yours, since when we are releasing our submission under GFDL, then we agree it will be mercilessly edits and consequently possible collaborative edits, so we have no right to claim to keep it in a shape we prefer, but copyright is never transferred to any others, including the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WMF has a plain and strong attitude about it, and has never acted as a publisher (= the entity which is responsible for its content and also one of its copyright holder vice versa), but as a Internet service provider which hosts users' submissions eventually and without any pre-review before publishing. But again, since all editors are assumed to accept their submissions will be able to edit, it is totally unacceptable to claim to keep it fitting your preferences only because it is "your" article. --Aphaia 20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I'd forgotten that bit about the Foundation's careful drawing of the line of copyright holding so that the rights are retained by the actual contributors. Sorry for the confusion. I think I let my contemplation of "compilation copyright" issues confuse me. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nit-nitpick, publishers of written work often are not the copyright holders, either. Unlike the recording and film/tv industries most authors retain copyright over their work and publishers are given exclusive publishing rights for a set amount of time. -- Greyed 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Greyed is right about written works in general. And I might be confused it with the right to publish (based on a certain printing muster). On the other hand, as far as I understand, it is rather common for encyclopedias or dictionaries or other types of complations that the publisher is credited as the copyright holder. Anyway unless it is explicitly said like logos, Wikimediua Foundation is generally no copyright holder of the content on the website which they host, but people who are traceable from "history" page. --Aphaia 01:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The (postponed) close of the current request is coming within a day. Since you reserved your vote, it is a reminder for you to review your vote before its closure. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you Jeff Beck? Because I know Jeff Beck was one of the guitar gods. --Cosby 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not Jeff Beck. (And I believe he is still considered a guitar god by many.) I'm afraid that I don't believe you are Bill Cosby, the famous comedian, either. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello JeffQ, I was just wondering if its the same vice versa?--McNoddy 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC) P.S Thanks for the heads up, i'll have to remember that one.

Not sure what you mean:

Do you need to include a link back to Wikiquote for material moved to Wikipedia? Most certainly. The idea is that without an imported or cut-and-pasted edit history, the destination project is no different from any other website that must credit the originating Wikimedia page and include a link back to that page. Technically, one might argue that the link shouldn't be in the edit summary but in the article itself, although that is not appropriate content for our articles. We're really just trying to use this shortcut to a full transwiki or cumbersome history-copy to stem the flood of GFDL violations, and we're hoping this is better than nothing.

Do you need to point to the Wikiquote article you moved the material to? I don't think so, since the action is merely a deletion of material on WP. But it's a good idea to do so, especially as a courtesy to the editors whose material has been moved. The formal transwiki process requires a link to the target page on the project one is moving material to.

OK, I get it now. I was misled by the source at the bottom of the page into thinking the page had come directly from the other site, and didn't realize what Sceptre was trying to do. Thanks, Jeff, for explaining the process. --Ubiquity 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the history of the page was actually copied, here. Will{talk) 20:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the subject of these responses, for my own records:

[Posted to both User talk:Sceptre and User talk:Ubiquity] … FYI, the process to transwiki into Wikiquote is described in detail at Help:Transwiki. It is completely appropriate for a transwikier to copy quote material from a Wikipedia article into a page called "Transwiki:name of article". (I probably would have used "Transwiki:Pablo Picasso" instead of Transwiki:Quotations by Pablo Picasso based on the likely destination page, but using the WP article title also makes perfect sense. It's a temporary page anyway and is in the Transwiki: space primarily so that the transfer process does not have to be completed by someone who may not know the policies and guidelines of the target project.) While Will did log its transfer from WP, he did not log its transfer to WQ in Transwiki per our policy (which follows Wikimedia-wide practice per m:Help:Transwiki). This informs people from both projects where articles are coming from and going to. (Some projects delete their logs after the transwiki is completed; we leave ours for future reference, as one never knows when someone might wonder what happened to their pet article.)

What is supposed to happen on the destination end is that a Wikiquotian will notice either the log entry or the new addition to Category:Move into Wikiquote. (That assumes the WP "Copy to Wikiquote" template is changed to {{Move to Wikiquote}}, which was not done here. I notice that our help page doesn't specify this step. Either I forgot to add that requirement, or WP's practice changed from using the template we still specify to using something that no longer works here. A redirect should fix that problem.) Anyway, the receiving Wikiquotian then decides whether to move, merge, or delete the incoming transwiki. Will did nothing wrong in leaving the merge to another editor.

Many editors bypass all the formalities and simply copy the material from WP to WQ. This is very bad and should be discouraged vehemently. It violates GFDL by providing no clear credit, link, or even association with the originating article. In the past year or so, we've tried to cut corners by at least mandating the inclusion of an unlabeled link back to the WP article (e.g., "w:Quotations by Pablo Picasso") in the edit summary (or on the discussion page if the copying editor forgets this step). Will did not do this, either, so there is no record on Wikiquote of where this page came from. We must have either the log or the edit-summary link as a very minimum record. NOTE, however, that if the transwikied material is an article that may be deleted, as this one was, this shortcut link is not appropriate, because the edit history will be lost to the general public when the source article is deleted. In these cases, one must provide a copy of the source article's edit history on the discussion page of the Transwiki page, which will then need to be transferred to the discussion pages of any articles that receive merged information. (If the Transwiki: page is simply deleted — and logged as deleted at Transwiki! — this is not necessary, just as it is not necessary to have a public record of contributions to any ordinary deleted article.)

It's now possible for some editors to export and import material between projects, which provides proper links and/or credits without much of the hassle of transwiki. I'm afraid I've been too distracted to investigate and document this, but Jusjih has been working on this recently.

Ubiquity says this material came from another website. That's good WQ detective work, but the misunderstading might have been avoided or lessened if he'd had the log to see that it was from WP and not this other website that Will transferred the material. However, it is not the responsibility of the transwikier to determine whether the transwikied material is acceptable to the project. We have the two-step process precisely to allow the destination project to make that determination, as Ubiquity did by finding that the WP material appears to be merely a copy of another website. (Even when the transwikier is a Wikiquotian, too, as Will is, one should consider that the transwiki process is enough of a bear not to expect them to do the full process at once. Of course, we have a serious backlog of material to finish transwikiing, but that's just one of our many backlogs.)

Ubiquity, in completing the transwiki, also failed either to log the transwiki completion or to credit the originating WP article in any edit summary, instead noting the apparent origin of the WP material. Technically, even this violates GFDL, as it fails to credit the WP editor(s) even if their work is borrowed. (One might ultimately determine they have no right to a copyright of their contributions, but it's a lot harder to work that out than just to add the article pointer or log the darn transfer and let others worry about the legal issues.)

I don't want to sound too critical about this. Most transwiki work that I've seen on Wikimedia projects, at least that done by non-bots, is horrendously improper. It's so bad that it could be used as an argument by Wikimedia copyright violators that we don't take our own licensing policies seriously, so why should they? But that won't change unless we read the instructions, improve them where needed, and follow them whenever possible.

My lack of participation in this work in the past 2 years has certainly contributed to these ongoing problems, which is one of many reasons I'm hoping to hand over some responsibilities that I think others would like to do. Meanwhile, I'd be happy to answer questions about this. Despite this critical review, I would like to thank you both for trying to get this right, which is more than most editors do. ~ Jeff Q(talk), originally at 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope this note catches you. Thanks for your comments about the excessive number of quotes by JRRT. Please check out the page I started on Eric Rücker Eddison‎ (Tolkien's evil twin. ;-) ) I included just 4 quotes and picked ones that I thought could stand on their own. Steve Dufour 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding me to the AWB checkpage. I apologize for my lack of understanding of the local policy. Regarding the diff you provided, I was merely removing what I considered to be vandalism. I was not aware of the user who made the comment, and I certainly was not attempting to assume bad faith of him/her in any way. In any case, it was probably an isolated incidence and I will be careful not to use any potentially offensive edit summaries. Thanks again. — Wenli(reply here) 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to understand a policy that doesn't exist. I had no idea we even had a checkpage set up. (I assume that some time after I got AWB-enabled, it became useful and/or necessary to create one in order for AWB to work here. I don't recall any discussion on the matter.) Wikiquote still does quite a bit of stuff informally, but that becomes a problem when no one responds to requests like yours in a reasonable time. (You did, after all, post your request to WQ:AN, just as WQ:AWB/CP said to do.) I'm afraid we're still working on how much formalism we need to ensure that the editors we have can get the required tasks done as they're needed. Like most things in this world, there are no obvious "right" answers. Thanks again for your patience on this matter. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved and merged the interwiki links this bot (AnankeBot) recently added to Wikiquote:Village pump (WQ:VP) into the proper page, Wikiquote:Village pump/Header, which we use because WQ:VP is designed to automatically add all new topics to the bottom of the page. Several maintenance and community pages follow this mechanism. I ask the owner of this bot to consider tweaking its operation, if possible, to accomodate this system, so that we don't have to keep moving and merging any changes that it makes to such pages. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 00:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbok has more than worn out several admins' attempts to assume good faith through his many failures to follow advice and then warnings, and now his obviously deliberately one-sided interpretation of my advice to both him and Will (Sceptre). I endorse (A) his block (which should be extended if he resumes any disruption after it expires); (B) the cancellation of his clearly retaliatory WQ:VIP post against 98.220.177.162; and (C) a permanent opposition to his pointless request for adminship. I'm afraid I don't see any way in which Wikiquote will benefit from his further activity here. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I said copyright vandalism in the sense of the policy: "Copyrighted material vandalism: Knowingly adding copyrighted material to Wikiquote articles in violation of Wikiquote policy is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikiquote policy in this regard, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the relevant policy and copyrighted nature of the material have been established." Will(talk) 11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I hadn't noticed the poor state of Wikiquote:Vandalism. This is yet another Essjay-copied WP policy that we haven't really adapted for Wikiquote. But I can hardly blame you for using it to cite problems. My apologies.

I've posted a bit of a diatribe at Wikiquote talk:Vandalism expressing my displeasure at the absurd number of unproductive actions that have been labelled "vandalism" by Wikipedia, no doubt out of their own frustration with uncooperative editors. I hope I can convince our community that there are better ways to deal with problem editors than treating them all like virtual graffiti artists. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments on the administrator's noticeboard regarding my blocking of the Crum account. Thanks especially for trying to diffuse tensions and improve budding ill-feelings. I still disagree with you on whether my block was in line with the letter and spirit of our WQ blocking policy, but you have more experience than I do in how WQ policies are actually applied. I have read everything you've said regarding my actions and my grasp (or lack thereof) of Wikiquote policy, and I take it seriously.

My goal in bringing this to AN was to get more eyes on the situation, to see if my actions (and, I suppose, Poetlister's) were in line with policy, and to make sure this situation was handled by community consensus and not any one or two admins. I think that's worked. There seems to be sharp disagreement about whether the Crum account is prima facie evidence of impersonation, but I'm confident the community will work this out.

Although you might not guess it, I'm really not fond of drama, and I certainly didn't mean to trigger something that would cause this much controversy between admins. So far as what happens to the Crum account(s), I'm quite happy, even relieved, to stay out of it and allow those with more experience to hash out the issues. All the best, Quadell 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I was recently looking over the Twin Peaks page, which is one of the articles tagged for copyvio review. Under the new guidelines we've been working on, a TV series would be nominated for deletion (on the grounds of possible copyvio) if none of the quotes were identified by episode. Since Twin Peaks had 30 episodes, however, it seems to me that this page might not be in violation (i.e., five quotes maximum for an hour-long show) if only the quotes were identified by episodes. As you had created the article and supplied many of its quotes, I was wondering if you would like to work on it as a part of the copyright project. - InvisibleSun 18:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be karmic punishment, eh? Yes, I'll do it. But I'll have to steel myself before I tackle Mystery Science Theater 3000, my true debt to the project. ☺ ~ Jeff Q(talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff, I was getting bug-eyed as I read that article and thinking what a load of crap, and hoping that it was a random poorly written article. After continuing my random reads, I indeed came upon some very well written content, but sadly there remains a LOT of out of scope stuff when taking into account the linked guidelines and policies you provided. That 2 Stupid Dogs article is so far out of my interest scope that I wouldn't even attempt to wikiquote it. My idea of a quotable is something that makes you go hmm after reading it and seeing how it could apply in a real world context, not just a random selection of meaningless dialogue out of context which can not qualify it's applicability as notable. I shall press on, if it doesn't all overwhelm my senses :) I'm try my luck at the Richard J. Daley aticle at the moment, trying to add sources and work on format. If you have a chance, let me know if I'm working within guidelines. I'm a wikipedian, and after over 6000 edits there, I'm trying not to impose my WP bias while editing too much here. Cheers and thanks again.--JavierMC 04:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you protect those pages which were vandalised 4 hours ago by User:GreenBalls. that person is actually a cross-wiki vandal who has been doing that for over 2 years now and since admins don't protect those pages after deleting, its recreated, he did a similar thing on wikipecies a few days ago, which I took care off, and he may hit this wiki again, recreating those pages, SALTing them will be a good idea...--Cometstyles 10:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some help on the Matt Sanchez article. There's someone, Silvowitz, who keeps putting in unsourced quotes on the page.Bluemarine 22:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question is sourced to the Alan Colmes show. The subject of the article -- Matt Sanchez -- is trying, for the umpteenth time, to delete it from the page. Matt Sanchez was banned from Wikipedia for similar activity. --Slivowitz 11:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having considerable problems right now devoting any time to Wikiquote. You both will probably get quicker action by posting to WQ:AN and gaining the attention of the more active admins. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff. By the way, if you check the Sanchez article, you'll find the only user advocating for Sanchez was the Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi sock, that has now been de-sysopped and banned. We went around in circles with this sock a few months ago, and it's good to know we can dismiss its lies out of hand. --Slivowitz 02:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I try not to dismiss anything someone says unless they are obvious vandals. I think it's important to separate the message from the messenger. Despite the policy violations that led to the aforementioned bans, Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi contributed quite a bit of good work to Wikiquote which remains. Frankly, Slivowitz, I wish you (and others) would work on being more civil, which gets more, not less, important when things get heated. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 03:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I take your note on civility. But Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi, et al. actually engaged in terrorizing and stalking Wiki editors offline, and that far outweighs any efforts on WQ. Any purported "good work" done here was used to get himself into positions of bureaucratic power, which he then abused to no end, until he was caught. Nothing about his contributions has been valuable, in the full context of his disgraceful actions. --Slivowitz 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, there was a VFD on Sanchez's page a while ago that was hijacked by the Cato/Poetlister/Yehudi sock. The page would most likely have been deleted if that idiot hadn't weighed in. Would you recommend I run another VFD? --Slivowitz 03:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I know you are not as active lately, but I was wondering if you could provide some historical perspective on a question posed on my talk page (see User_talk:UDScott#Boilerplates). I'm not sure if there would be any objection to this template. Do you have any thoughts? Thanks. ~ UDScott 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Put in its most general form, I don't like {{cite web}} and the other Wikipedia citation templates because they use what I learned as "bibliography style" rather than "footnote style", and I believe the latter is more appropriate for the Web. (Plus, if you're not doing the vile APA-style in-line citations, there's no reason to front the date of publication; indeed, it's much easier to read if it's at the end.) Bibliography style is particularly bad at dealing with the case (common here) where the author is already fixed and does not need to be restated at every citation. 121a0012 02:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't done much editing to wikiquote (though I have worked with it for a while, my favorite [and only] major addition being Edward Ravenscroft), but I'm just starting to try to get involved. I have been trying to clean some things up, and I ended up at Dragon Ball Z (which I never watch or have any interest in, but I thought I could do some objective tidying). I was reading the talk page before doing anything, and read your lengthy and informative entry. The article (which is now articles) has gotten slightly out of hand again it appears--with gems such as:

Now my real question is how do I appropriately go about attempting to trim an article. I have versed myself pretty well in policies such as Wikiquote:Quotability, and Wikiquote:Limits on Quotations, but I still feel as if I start trying to objectively and appropriately trim down an article such as this (and Eminem's article, which is questionable, especially with regards to Limits on Quotation for Records), due to the nature of its subject (as well as Eminem's), it will probably just end up reverted without even comments on the talk page. As I'd like to be a responsible editor, do you have any advice about how I can begin such a task and how such a cleanup is normally done? What usually happens when someone tries to clean up an article with what one would predict would be a rather rabid fan-base? Is it usually taken well, or is it rather a useless attempt?

P.S. If I can ever remember my old password, I may sign in again as Chris S.

Wow, I just really started reading through the Dragon Ball Z Season One, and it's just whole scenes, not quotes. It's full of material inappropriate for inclusion, including descriptions of what the characters are doing. This isn't Wikiscript! Chris66.183.69.201 22:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris, if you're still reading this, I apologize for not responding to your questions and points. I remember reading your first post and deferring it for a day or so because I always try to respond to newer editors with comprehensive answers that include plenty of links for further information, but I was in a hurry at the time. Then life happened and I all but disappeared for a while.

I'm happy to see that you did quite well without my assistance. I hope that the end of edits under your above IP two months later only means that you changed IPs, and that you continue to enjoy contributing to Wikiquote. If you're back (or still here), I'll try to answer any new questions much more quickly. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I read an entry of yours way back when which very nicely elucidated some points with respect to Wikiquote. I was looking for it to reference it, and had no idea where it was, so I thought I'd do a site-specific Google search (as I knew it had one specific word I could remember: pithy). So I tried: (Search: JeffQ pithy site:en.wikiquote.org). 39 results! I thought I'd had a specific enough word--guess not! After reading through the 39 results I couldn't even tell which one I was looking for as I had read too much! Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 00:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks, Peace – I certainly do find this amusing. Every time I write the word "pithy", I cringe a little because I don't like to repeat myself unnecessarily. But pithy is so... pithy. It succinctly expresses the concept of being succinctly significant, which is quite significant at Wikiquote. But I am surprised that Google found only 39 pages in which I'd used it. ☺ ~ Jeff Q(talk) 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like User Wikipedia|Username works if the username there is different? That will work on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why it won't here. Шизомби 20:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

English Wikiquote's templates are often simpler than English Wikipedia's, mostly because they've got far more people to develop and maintain them. We tend to avoid overly sophisticated templates unless they have an experienced editor committed to maintaining them. Furthermore, with the unified login now available, the need for different names is significantly less than it used to be.

However, this change is pretty simple and doesn't interfere with existing use of the template, so I went ahead and added the current w:en:Template:User Wikipedia's two parameters – en:WP username and alternative phrase for "a page" – to our Template:User Wikipedia. Hope this helps. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 07:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jiff Q. You may have noticed me on User talk:Шизомби having helped him with the UBX on his user page as part of his being renamed on ENWP. You're an admin here on Wikiquote so i am coming to you with this. As the rename has been competed i went to remove the pasted code and allow for the simple transclusion of the UBX. (I am a bit of a "full service" CHU clerk.) Anyways, it seems that i was prohibited from doing so, accumulating a nice sized abuse filter log for it (it tells you to click save again if this is a false positive). I have also been denied autoconfirmed user because of this, something which according to Meta i was supposed to already have. I was chatting with gurch a little while ago and he tried too; see his abuse filter log. The abuse filter really needs to be edited. Punitive measures for false positives with an encouragement to try again and thus get another log entry is very unbecoming any project and their abuse filter. Just to test the scope of the filter i blanked my own user page of it's interwiki redirects and gave the edit summary "test". That it allows! I was not actually blanking Шизомби's user page. Having come to this project initially because of the rename on ENWP i was impressed and with my love of quotes thought i might participate here. Being permanently relegated to unconfirmed user status is a huge turn-off, especially considering my rather impeccable record elsewhere. delirious&lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that Ningauble has already replied to your request on your talk page. I hope that helps. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 18:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page for a longer response re the abuse filter. As to the autoconfirmed user status, any explanation as to why Meta says i should have it but clearly i never did have it? My enwq account was automatically created on 19 September 2009 and i had 7 edits before i first was introduced to the abuse filter here. If there is some difference in getting autoconfirmed here then it should be noted on the page on Meta or/and the ENWQ page should not be redirecting to Meta. For ENWP it is four days and ten edits to be autoconfirmed; perchance is it likewise so here? delirious&lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very active on Wikiquote right now. I highly recommend you take this to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard so that someone who is up-to-speed on abuse filters can help you with this. I would make one point: Wikiquote, like many non-WP projects, tends to have only a tiny fraction of the participation of the main project. This tends to lead to simpler processes and somewhat longer resolution times. I'm really not familiar with abuse filters at the moment, and Ningauble's post suggests to me that our admins might still be getting used to them. Post to WQ:AN and please be patient with us. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok so the same post telling me the same thing is a bit of a hint you are not too active. However i had a different question here on your talk page, which is why i wrote here. I get the hint. Bye. delirious&lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, I get an error message when I try to post on the Admin noticeboard. In any case, User:GunLobbyist, User:BornInTheUSA, and User:TexasTown all seem to be the same person, going through subject pages alphabetically and posting "quotes" from Wickedictionary, which is sort of a joke version of Wiktionary (although one version has been published in print). Here are a few diffs: [3], [4], [5]. I am inclined to revert all of these additions, but would value a second look. Cheers! BD2412T 23:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the Wikimedia servers had a brief problem that has now passed. I'll take a look shortly, but you might want to try to repost to WQ:AN as well. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 23:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a juicy sourcing project ­– and a transwiki at that! I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll take a look at it sometime in the next week. Thanks for the suggestion. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 04:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you are noted as inactive on the list of administrators, but you seem to be around from time to time. Do you want to remove that note? BD2412T 04:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been especially active as a user, but I feel the WQ:ADMIN tag of "inactive" is merited because I haven't done any admin work for quite a while. I don't really feel I should do anything unless & until I re-read relevant policies and practices, for the same reason I always cautioned many admin candidates in their hurry to get admin powers. In fact, several times a year I consider requesting a de-listing as admin. I guess I hang onto it for the possibility I might become active again, but I'd probably agree to a de-listing if folks don't feel comfortable with my absence and rusty skills. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 07:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather have you back as an editor/admin! :-) BD2412T 13:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)